Old Dad, I tend to agree with you-- but--

there are certainly households for which even a cash outlay of 16-25K annually (which is what most state universities are running these days) is into the realm of "unthinkable."

Now, if the cash outlay were more like 6-10K, well, then-- yes, "work your way through" seems quite fair to me. It's what I managed without much debt, after all.

But no, not everyone's parents can/will pay for college. I don't think that it is either right or societally wise, even, to just shrug and say "oh well" to those students.

Now, if we quit subsidizing the education of those who probably have no business on a college campus to begin with (and I'm sorry-- but 200-400 on an SAT section is just not college material in most instances) then maybe costs wouldn't NEED to be so high. Of course, there are going to be some VERY unhappy UMC parents when they get told that Very Important Son, the fourth, there, had better look into the possibilities that the armed services or local trade schools afford him... but in an ideal world, honestly, I don't see education as a purchased commodity available to the highest bidder. Which is apparently what we have now, I mean.

I prefer a system which sets standards and says "oh, that's unfortunate" to those who can't meet them-- regardless of ability to PAY. Now, no-- I don't think that "free" is necessarily the right thing, either. But this is rather like a pro-sports stadium in some respects. I completely understand why people living in Shasta County wouldn't want to PAY to replace Dodger Stadium with a new state-of-the-art facility with their state tax dollars, and think that the fans and franchise owners should be coughing up the cash. I also understand that folks in Orange and LA counties do want some of it to come from taxes, because they derive direct economic benefit to keeping a franchise there. I think that both considerations are completely relevant here, too-- there is OF COURSE personal economic benefit to an individual for attending college. However, arguing that a free market system will take care of itself ignores the fact that the entire economic engine of a country depends upon innovation and high educational levels in the working population; so public support makes a great deal of sense, too. Clearly some hybrid is the most sensible thing. It's the details that are murky.


I wonder.

Last edited by HowlerKarma; 01/08/14 12:50 PM.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.